• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay-rights bill clears first hurdle in Senate

if/since one is "born gay" wouldn't that already be covered under the current AD laws regarding "sex"?

It would be, but since it can't yet be "proven", it isn't that way hence the need for this.
 
Yes, we need to protect the rights of citizens to continue being allowed to discirminate against those nasty gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaays :roll:

At will employees can be fired for any reason except discrimination. So what's next after sexual preference? Weight? Oh that has already happened. Like someone being a fat ass is the company's fault.This has nothing to do with gay or anything else on my part. More and more rights to association are being taken away from businesses and company's a little at a time. Anyone with a lawsuit can do it for the most stupid reasons. This is nothing but more affirmative action type laws.

So much for equal protection under the law. If you are part of a special group you get all kinds of extra crap.
 
At will employees can be fired for any reason except discrimination. So what's next after sexual preference? Weight? Oh that has already happened. Like someone being a fat ass is the company's fault.This has nothing to do with gay or anything else on my part. More and more rights to association are being taken away from businesses and company's a little at a time. Anyone with a lawsuit can do it for the most stupid reasons. This is nothing but more affirmative action type laws.

So much for equal protection under the law. If you are part of a special group you get all kinds of extra crap.

Yeah, God forbid firms lose the right to screw their employees for reasons completely unrelated to job performance.
 
Yeah, God forbid firms lose the right to screw their employees for reasons completely unrelated to job performance.

No one is saying that. Nice hyperbole though. I am saying that we don't need protected classes. Just like hate laws and gays not being allowed to marry. It's all the same. We should all be equal under the law, period. Freedom is NOT free.
 
No one is saying that. Nice hyperbole though. I am saying that we don't need protected classes. Just like hate laws and gays not being allowed to marry. It's all the same. We should all be equal under the law, period. Freedom is NOT free.

Except the result of this concept you're supporting is exactly what he said: businesses being able to fire employees because of who they are, not because of what they do.
 
Except the result of this concept you're supporting is exactly what he said: businesses being able to fire employees because of who they are, not because of what they do.

And why should not businesses have the right to hire and fire who they want for whatever reason? It's not like gay people are being fired in droves for being gay. It is bull**** waist of time legislation we don't need. If they fire you for discrimination sue them. We don't need extra laws.
 
I don't think it's that so much as they absolutely refuse to do anything that could be perceived as giving the Democrats a win, because they care more about petty partisanship than doing the right thing.

Why don't you stop your ****ing whining, haven't Dems gotten just about everything they want? I mean really I'm fed with with that meme. And BTW, the Republicans aren't here to help Democrats win, so get that thru your head. Are Dems helping Reps win??? Well are they?
 
And why should not businesses have the right to hire and fire who they want for whatever reason? It's not like gay people are being fired in droves for being gay. It is bull**** waist of time legislation we don't need. If they fire you for discrimination sue them. We don't need extra laws.

I dont understand this statement?
what "extra" laws are you referring to?

and what every you are deeming as an extra law, like this one im "GUESSING" (please correct me if im wrong) if it doesnt exist what do you sue for?
 
I dont understand this statement?
what "extra" laws are you referring to?

We don't need laws protecting classes of people. Everyone should be equal under the law. This Bill that just passed the senate.

and what every you are deeming as an extra law, like this one im "GUESSING" (please correct me if im wrong) if it doesnt exist what do you sue for?

Discrimination does not have to be a law to be sued over. If you feel you were unfairly dismissed for say being handicapped whether it affected your job performance or not etc. You can sue over it. Hell if you have problems and get fired for complaining guess what...

United Hospital nurse says she was fired after voicing complaints - United Hospital nurse says she was fired after voicing complaints | Star Tribune

This Bill is an absolute waist of time and I am glad it will be defeated.
 
1.)We don't need laws protecting classes of people.
2.) Everyone should be equal under the law. This Bill that just passed the senate.
3.) Discrimination does not have to be a law to be sued over. If you feel you were unfairly dismissed for say being handicapped whether it affected your job performance or not etc. You can sue over it. Hell if you have problems and get fired for complaining guess what...

4.) United Hospital nurse says she was fired after voicing complaints - United Hospital nurse says she was fired after voicing complaints | Star Tribune

5.) This Bill is an absolute waist of time

6.) and I am glad it will be defeated.

1.) history seems to disagree with that view, Without many of these laws we are still behind the times
2.) and thats what these laws try to help
3.) you say that but again what will you sue for?

4.) but this is exactly my point, what is she suing for, yes i can sue you or attempt to sue you for any reason but without these laws theres little ground to actually sue on and how many are successful

5.) i disagree i like peoples rights being protected and adding this to the bill that already exists for gender, race, religion etc IMO helps people not being discriminated again and im all in favor of that.

6.) you are probably right about this bill buts it going to pass eventually and many states, cities and companies have similar protections.

Id rather people not be fired based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation etc
 
And why should not businesses have the right to hire and fire who they want for whatever reason? It's not like gay people are being fired in droves for being gay. It is bull**** waist of time legislation we don't need. If they fire you for discrimination sue them. We don't need extra laws.

Without legislation of this nature, you can't sue an employer who fired you just for being gay. "Discrimination" isn't illegal in a broad sense. Only discrimination regarding certain classifications.

You are contradicting yourself. If an employer can fire you at any time for any reason, there's nothing to sue over.

Yes, we should force companies to hire tokens. That'll encourage fairness and equality.

Who do you purchase your straw from? Do you get a good deal for buying in bulk?
 
And why should not businesses have the right to hire and fire who they want for whatever reason? It's not like gay people are being fired in droves for being gay. It is bull**** waist of time legislation we don't need. If they fire you for discrimination sue them. We don't need extra laws.


Just make sure we reform the legal system by reinstituting loser pays... ;)


Tim-
 
Who do you purchase your straw from? Do you get a good deal for buying in bulk?

Well, what else would you call it? If a company hired a black man because he can perform the job, contribute, and be an asset to the company, he's an employee. If a company hired a black man because the government forces him to, he's a token.

Are you trying to argue semantics or something? If so, you're losing.
 
Well, what else would you call it? If a company hired a black man because he can perform the job, contribute, and be an asset to the company, he's an employee. If a company hired a black man because the government forces him to, he's a token.

Are you trying to argue semantics or something? If so, you're losing.

Ok so are you serisouly implying that if a black man with NO experience what so ever in computers goes into a programming firm that the company has to hire him to be a programmer because he is black? Come on, noone is buying that. There are STILL qualifications that have to be met.
 
Ok so are you serisouly implying that if a black man with NO experience what so ever in computers goes into a programming firm that the company has to hire him to be a programmer because he is black? Come on, noone is buying that. There are STILL qualifications that have to be met.

To an extent, that's possible. Also, "qualifications" are subjective. That's why Affirmative Action gets called out for its crap - it often will force institutions to be "equal" when the result of that equality is anti-meritorious.
 
To an extent, that's possible. Also, "qualifications" are subjective. That's why Affirmative Action gets called out for its crap - it often will force institutions to be "equal" when the result of that equality is anti-meritorious.

back when my kid brother was applying for med schools, in order to be "equally qualified" as a minority or female applicant, he had to score 10 points higher on the MCAT. I forget the exact numbers, but the average GPA and MCAT for minority applicants accepted were considerably lower than the scores for the average white guy.
 
back when my kid brother was applying for med schools, in order to be "equally qualified" as a minority or female applicant, he had to score 10 points higher on the MCAT. I forget the exact numbers, but the average GPA and MCAT for minority applicants accepted were considerably lower than the scores for the average white guy.

That also happened at the law school of my alma mater. There was a big local outcry about it.
 
I'm comfortable with "we refuse to hire black people" being illegal.
Why? What's wrong with that? I'm no racist by any means but I also support someone's right to run their business any way they see fit. How would you like to go into a Hooters and see some hairy, fat white dude with moobs serving you wings and beer?
 
Well, what else would you call it? If a company hired a black man because he can perform the job, contribute, and be an asset to the company, he's an employee. If a company hired a black man because the government forces him to, he's a token.

Are you trying to argue semantics or something? If so, you're losing.

That's not how discrimination laws work and nobody is suggesting they should work that way. I thought the straw man reference would make that obvious, sorry.
 
Why? What's wrong with that? I'm no racist by any means but I also support someone's right to run their business any way they see fit. How would you like to go into a Hooters and see some hairy, fat white dude with moobs serving you wings and beer?

Not comparable. Anti-discrimination laws don't apply when the status is a "bona fide occupational qualification" (if I remember the business 101 terminology right). The point of hooters, or a strip club, is scantily clad women, so that's a qualification for the waitress/dancers. However, the same is not true of the person who cleans the bathroom at a hooters, so hooters can't disqualify you from janitorial employment solely for being a man.

Similarly, being able to climb steps and lift heavy things is a requirement to be a fedex delivery person, so they get around some of the laws against discriminating against the physically disabled.

"Being white" isn't an actual qualification for any position I can think of.
 
That's not how discrimination laws work and nobody is suggesting they should work that way. I thought the straw man reference would make that obvious, sorry.

It's how Affirmative Action works. Discrimination laws are essentially an anti-business crutch that forces the government bully into private practice. It also has the ancillary little drawback of making every moron, idiot, and jackass speculate as to why he was fired or wasn't hired.

I'm not authoritarian like you. I don't like being told what to do, what to think, and who to hire.
 
Why don't you stop your ****ing whining, haven't Dems gotten just about everything they want? I mean really I'm fed with with that meme. And BTW, the Republicans aren't here to help Democrats win, so get that thru your head. Are Dems helping Reps win??? Well are they?

Dude, unclench your pucker.

No, Republicans aren't there to help Democrats win; however, they are in government to govern properly. Extending equal rights and protection under law to all Americans is the right thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom